InteliStaf Healthcare v. Daniels

── InteliStaf Healthcare v. Daniels ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Ortega Category: General 390 May 13, 2026 No. 396 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Julie A. Daniels, Claimant. INTELISTAF HEALTHCARE, ACE USA, and ESIS, Petitioners, v. Julie A. DANIELS, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board 2005332; A181989 Argued and submitted April 1, 2025. Rebecca A. Watkins argued the cause for petitioners. Also on the briefs was SBH Legal. Julene M. Quinn argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. Cite as 349 Or App 390 (2026) 391 ORTEGA, P. J. Employer seeks judicial review of a final order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, which determined that claimant’s medical services claim was for a condition caus- ally related to her 2004 work injury. On review, employer argues that the board legally erred in its application of ORS 656.245(1)(a) and that the board’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the board did not err and affirm. We summarize the facts from the board’s order on review and its order on reconsideration. In May 1996, when she was working for a previous employer, claimant injured her low back, for which she had surgery. Her resulting work- ers’ compensation claim was accepted for a right lumbar strain, L3-4 disc herniation, and epidural fibrosis at the site of her L3-4 discectomy. Claimant was able to return to work after treatment and had no symptoms. In March 2004, while working for employer, claim- ant again injured her low back, and her resulting workers’ compensation claim ultimately was accepted for lumbar strain and an L3-4 annular tear. In September 2005, claim- ant began treatment with Dr. Morgan, a pain management specialist, for her low back pain. In 2014, Dr. Kitchel examined claimant at employ- er’s request and determined she had “evidence of a chronic pain syndrome secondary to [the 2004] work injury and possible arachnoiditis as diagnosed in the 2014 MRI scan” that was also related to treatment of the 2004 work injury. He recommended that claimant continue treatment with Morgan and that she continue using an intrathecal pain pump and oral medications. Morgan continued treating claimant for chronic low back pain and, in October 2018, recommended a trial of Nevro, a spinal cord stimulator, to reduce claimant’s pain and to attempt to reduce claimant’s reliance on oral pain medications and her intrathecal pain pump. In December 2018, Dr. Swanson examined claimant at employer’s request and opined that her symptoms “were due to her ‘biopsycho- social pathology’ in the lumbar spine and were unrelated to 392 InteliStaf Healthcare v. Daniels the 2004 work injury.” He also recommended against any further ongoing treatment, including the Nevro trial. Morgan did not concur in Swanson’s report. Morgan continued to treat claimant, and from June 2019 through September 2020, claimant’s appointments were primarily to refill her pain pump. In August 2020, Morgan opined that the 2004 work injury “has been and continues to be at least a material contributing cause of her need for medical treatment and services, and specifically, her need for a spi- nal stimulator and a medication pump,” but that “her failed lumber laminotomy/discectomy is also a causative factor.” Employer did not authorize the Nevro trial and did not pay for claimant’s treatments with Morgan from June 14, 2019, through September 3, 2020. Employer contended that Morgan’s disputed services were not causally related to the accepted claim and were excessiv